Royal Weddings.

Giselle

So, Prince Willy and his girlfriend have announced their engagement, and they'll be hitched in the spring or summer of next year.

Already, the news has taken over Sky News, has been covered on CNN and is being featured on all the news stations in Europe.

Estimates of 100's of millions of viewers are being bandied about for the tv coverage of the day itself, and designers are being discussed by serious news reporters as contenders for the wedding dress. Its big news, apparently.

It would be difficult for me to care less.

So, are you interested?
If so, why? Will you watch the wedding on the day?

Or are the ladies of the lounge, like me, indifferent to the wedding of two people I don't know?

Couldn't care less. More celebrity gossip really isn't it?

Giselle

Thats all it really is, but its annoying that its being 'legitimised' on serious News programmes. I'm actually embarrassed for some of the presenters, I'd hate to be forced to discuss wedding dresses or venues if I was a serious reporter.:)

ztoical

Giselle wrote: »

Thats all it really is, but its annoying that its being 'legitimised' on serious News programmes

Well like it or not a royal wedding is a political issue in countries with constitutional monarchies. The royal family while not holding political office still have some influence on the government, the British Queen meets with the PM every week to discuss political issues and Prince William will be the future King and the British royal family repersents an image of the UK to the rest of the world [it's open to discussion wither that is a negative or positive thing]. It's of interest to a number of people from historical and political points as his future wife does not come from a royal background.

panda100

I just read the Royal Press statement which I found a bit archaic tbh. 'Prince Willam also sought the permission of Miss Middelton's father'..... Nice to see sexist traditions remain in Clarence House.

Also, to add to Ztoical's post, they live off people's tax money, so I can understand the level of interest in them to the British public.

Edgedinblue

Its a load of codswhalop! Whatever about it being on sky news and the like, just dont show it on our tv channels. why would we care over here about them and their wedding.

Im still wondering why they think so many people from around the world will be watching it, surely its not that big of a deal to other places in the world bar england?!

I am a friend

Its also nice to see that some old traditions are upheld.

ztoical

Edgedinblue wrote: »

Im still wondering why they think so many people from around the world will be watching it, surely its not that big of a deal to other places in the world bar england?!

Americans are pretty obsessed with the British Royal family and they would be heads of state for a number of commonwealth countries as well.

ztoical

panda100 wrote: »

Also, to add to Ztoical's post, they live off people's tax money, so I can understand the level of interest in them to the British public.

While I agree they do have an income via public funds the view that they are living off tax payers isn't 100% true as the royal family has a lot of private funds such as the Duchy of Lancaster and Duchy Cornwall as well as other investments. The own a very large chunk of the UK land wise.

The civil list is the list of money paid from public funds for some expenses associated with the Sovereign performing of his or her state duties, including those for staffing, state visits, public engagements, ceremonial functions and the upkeep of the Royal Households. The biggest chunk is spent on security which is one of those catch 22's. If the public didn't care so much about the royal family they wouldn't have to spend so much on security. They are seen as a good investment from a tourism view point as while most Irish people don't get the interest, royality is big business in some european countries, most Asian countries and of course the USA.

The British royal family costs more then any other European royal household to keep mainly due to the level of interest. How many people here know if it's currently a King or Queen as head of state in Norway without checking wikipedia?

cdaly_

Who?

perri winkles

The only reason I would watch it is to see the dress

Other then that I couldn't give a toss about it

Snoopy1

Well im from the UK so have some interest in it. However, i do think the news have gone completley over the top, and its not that big deal

Orla K

I was wondering why this thread was in tll I was thinking of loads of better places it could go, I was thinking that just because it's a womens forum we're not all interested in celebs, weddings and whatever.

So no I really don't give a crap that they're going to get married, and I don't care that what's her name is going to be the next queen(if that actually happens, Queen Victoria's husband was never king but I doubt that'll happen here)

squeakyduck

Doesn't really bother me too much! But, I will probably be whinging when all I can see is page by page of "the run up to the wedding of the decade!" and I can't read the real news until I turn to page 30!!! :rolleyes:

I hated the run up to Coleen and Wayne Rooney's wedding, and they are barely married a wet weekend when he's off doing the dirty. :eek:

LenaClaire

I personally have no interest in it but people seem to love weddings in general. Start of a new married life, young love, all that jazz. They especially like it when people they have watched grow up get married and have kids.

Look at how nuts it went in the US when Chelsea Clinton got married and her dad has not been in office for ages.

It just seems very silly for it to take over the regular news. They should just stick it in the wedding magazines or whatever.

Regina Phalange

I don't know why but I am slightly interested. Maybe because I'm living in London and the whole office was on about it, it was pretty big news for 'em. Definitely interested in the dresses and the general style of the wedding (traditional, most likely, but work colleagues wondered about a more modern take). But I don't agree with the news channels perspective, this "24hr news update outside Kate's childhood bedroom window" is a load of mudpie.

Also, people have mentioned it has taken their minds off the daily 'doom and gloom' stories. "it'll certainly boost the economy".

I just think its sad that Diana isn't around for it.

Imagine coming from a regular family though and then one day actually becoming a Princess/Queen. That must be a strange feeling.

goose2005

Edgedinblue wrote: »

Im still wondering why they think so many people from around the world will be watching it, surely its not that big of a deal to other places in the world bar england?!

He'll also be king of Canada, Jamaica, Australia, NZ, Belize, Barbados, etc.

dvet

I think it's kind of interesting... they seem like a nice couple, and it makes a nice change to have a 'happy' news story in the headlines for once!

ztoical

I had to laugh at my friends reaction:

Unpopular tories in power, recession, mass unemployment, foreign wars and now a royal wedding to distract the massed peasantry from all the woes - anyone else think we've just time warped back to 1981?

monroebaby

Orla K wrote: »

So no I really don't give a crap that they're going to get married, and I don't care that what's her name is going to be the next queen(if that actually happens, Queen Victoria's husband was never king but I doubt that'll happen here)

Queen Victoria's husband Prince (consort) Albert didn't become King because he did not inherit the throne and therefore couldn't claim a title deemed higher than that of the lady in charge. When Kate marries William she should become a Queen (consort) and share her husbands rank but not hold his military or political powers. Historically and politically its important. A lot of people will be interested in it, the problem really is the way todays media drowns us in mundane detail, too much information. That's the way it is and as long as people keep making money at it, that's the way it'll stay. By the time this comes around we will surely know what even the corgi's have had for breakfast on the day. :eek:

LadyMayBelle

I feel like I may be alone in this, but I'm excited!! I have always been a fan of the royals, I think it stems from my gran's interest and her leafing throught Hello! and keeping cut outs form the newspapers. It's a common interest we both have, and I am always drawn to snippets and articles about royals, from anywhere but especially the UK and Denmark. So I am giddy already!!! My poor boyfriend has already told me to 'whist' twice this evening!

Regina Phalange

ztoical wrote: »

I had to laugh at my friends reaction:

Unpopular tories in power, recession, mass unemployment, foreign wars and now a royal wedding to distract the massed peasantry from all the woes - anyone else think we've just time warped back to 1981?

I've seen this doing the rounds on Facebook!
Also
"The 80's called, they want their decade back"

Neyite

im UK born so while l love ireland, I will always be a bit of interest in the royals. my OH just rolls the eyes and calls me a daft Tan when he saw me watching this when he came in this evening.

as she is in line to be the next british queen, she will have enormous influence for charitable causes that wouldnt normally get a second mention, for instance, when Diana went visiting AIDS victims, back in the eighties, and held their hand, and hugged them, it was groundbreaking at the time, mainly because some doctors were still insisting that it could be transmitted that way, it was considered generally a disgusting disease that perverts caught, and by Diana touching these men, she almost overnight turned public opinion and it drew in badly needed funding for this charity as well as a better understanding of a terrible disease, and compassion for its victims.

Kate brings much needed glamour (and good looking genetics) into the royals, and if lending her name to worthy causes to improve the lives of others then can that be such a bad thing?

the glamour and power will come at a huge price. this womans entire life will change within the Establishment. she will likely never have a proper bit of privacy until the end of her days. every pound she gains or loses will be scrutinised, every bit of cellulite papped, every time she makes a fashion faux pas it will be all over the media. thats not easy, for an ordinary girl who just met a man at uni that she fell in love with.

Scarinae

panda100 wrote: »

I just read the Royal Press statement which I found a bit archaic tbh. 'Prince Willam also sought the permission of Miss Middelton's father'..... Nice to see sexist traditions remain in Clarence House.

If you think the sexist traditions are bad, you should see some of the headlines over here!

"From student lover to princess, Kate’s nine-year wait is over" - yes, because all she's been doing for the last nine years is hoping he'll propose. Since that is the only objective in a woman's life.

"Kate will be the oldest spinster ever to marry a king" - Yeah, I'm surprised he's marrying someone as geriatric as 28. I know that they mean she's the oldest non-divorced woman to marry someone in line to the throne, but 'spinster' is an appalling choice of word

Vinta81

Snoopy1 wrote: »

Well im from the UK so have some interest in it. However, i do think the news have gone completley over the top, and its not that big deal

I'm from England so yeah pretty big interest I don't think they've gone over the top though, it's a Royal wedding it's getting the coverage that would be expected.

Cannot wait for it though!

FouxDaFaFa

I'm semi-interested in the ceremony itself, not having been alive for the Charles/Diana wedding and never having seen a royal wedding. However, I am dreading the news coverage in the lead-up to it. It's already taken over the media today and there is no information about the wedding available. Imagine what will happen when details are announced? I feel pretty sorry for Kate and William, tbh. I imagine a lot of the wedding will be planned for them and they'll just have to go along with it.

Max001

Giselle wrote: »

It would be difficult for me to care less.

Yet you started this thread

Scarinae

Max001 wrote: »

Yet you started this thread

In fairness, it is pretty difficult to escape this news, it is absolutely everywhere today. I couldn't give a toss about X-Factor, but I am allowed to have an opinion on it, ie. that it is incredibly irritating the way it takes over the news and my facebook feed every bloody weekend. In fact, I have posted about that very topic in R&R.

Scarinae

As for my opinions about the actual engagement, I think that it shows that the Royal family are starting to move with the times a bit more. William is engaged to his girlfriend of several years, who is from a rich but not a titled family. She has had previous boyfriends, has an education, and most importantly they chose each other. They have also been together for years, so she has a good idea of what she is getting herself into. They've even lived together before marriage - there is no way this would have been allowed a few decades ago!

Compare this to his parents, Charles and Diana - Charles had obviously fallen for Camilla, but was not allowed to marry her because she was divorced. Diana was pretty much chosen for him - she was young (I think she may have been 18 or 19?) compared to Charles who was in his early 30s, her father was an Earl, and she was a virgin. A lot of importance was placed on the virgin thing - I've heard before that some press at the time were determined to get evidence of the couple having sex before marriage, but actually recorded phone calls between Charles and Camilla, which were quickly hushed up. Anyway, my point is that they should have just let Charles marry Camilla in the first place, it would have saved so much heartache, and it was a big deal when they finally got married a few years ago.

So, I think it is a good thing that he is being allowed to marry the person he is actually in love with, not some titled virgin who has been chosen to bear sons for him and not much else. Also, Diana was so determined that her kids would grow up to be grounded, I think that she would have approved.

Regina Phalange

Neyite wrote: »

the glamour and power will come at a huge price. this womans entire life will change within the Establishment. she will likely never have a proper bit of privacy until the end of her days. every pound she gains or loses will be scrutinised, every bit of cellulite papped, every time she makes a fashion faux pas it will be all over the media. thats not easy, for an ordinary girl who just met a man at uni that she fell in love with.

I was thinking about this earlier. Its a HUGE thing to be asked to be the future Queen of the United Kingdom. Whatever about the wealth and the title but your whole life will revolve around the Royal Family. I think you'd have to give up an awful lot. I don't know what she studied at University but imagine going to University to become a teacher but it can't happen for her now. That just seems so strange to me. Maybe its me, but I think you'd have to look beyond being in love. (and I thought I was the romantic type)

Max001

Fishie wrote: »

In fairness, it is pretty difficult to escape this news, it is absolutely everywhere today. I couldn't give a toss about X-Factor, but I am allowed to have an opinion on it, ie. that it is incredibly irritating the way it takes over the news and my facebook feed every bloody weekend. In fact, I have posted about that very topic in R&R.

You're right of course and I was just pulling Giselle's leg. Incidently, right with you on X-Factor.

hinault

As a man, I can remember a lot of scoffing by women in the runup to Charles and Diana's wedding.

But come the day, most of the world was glued to the TV screens.

Here in Ireland they went on and on and on about the wedding, the dress.

Probably a more innocent time back then though.

Neyite

Regina Phalange wrote: »

I don't know what she studied at University..

she studied history, along with William, but he switched to geography, or so Sky News informed me.

Neyite

Fishie wrote: »

"From student lover to princess, Kate’s nine-year wait is over" - yes, because all she's been doing for the last nine years is hoping he'll propose. Since that is the only objective in a woman's life.

evidently we are all just hanging around for our prince. however there is an element of truth in this statement in one way, i dont mean by waiting for him to propose, but for instance, they have lived together for 7 years now. she has been his partner, yet its only due to a bit of new jewellery that she is now being given royal protection. now she has the benefit of pr & media management to keep tabloids in a bit of line, whereas yesterday if a story of say, a wild night at university surfaced, she would have been at the mercy of the press.
i would hope that she enjoys the sweet revenge on the dumbass posh sloaney set that took the piss out of her mother being 'only' an air hostess. and slagged her off about being middle class and no family title - she'll now have a far better title than Lord wotsit and Lady yerwan.

Novella

Saw on Sky earlier that she'd gotten engaged... did not have a clue who she is. So yeah, I don't care at all, no interest.

Giselle

Fishie wrote: »

In fairness, it is pretty difficult to escape this news, it is absolutely everywhere today.

Thats my only problem. Its just going to be impossible to escape.

While I dont have many particularly clear memories of Princess Diana, I think this woman is going to be shoved into a Diana shaped void and tormented in a very similar way. Poor thing, its a high price.

panda100

Giselle wrote: »

Thats my only problem. Its just going to be impossible to escape.

While I dont have many particularly clear memories of Princess Diana, I think this woman is going to be shoved into a Diana shaped void and tormented in a very similar way. Poor thing, its a high price.

Yep,I can't help but fear for them. They seem to be a lovely couple,very much in love, Im sure the media will help screw up both their lives in some sort of way.
The tabloids have got a perfect princess in Kate Middelton and she will be stalked by them until she dies, i guess.

Orla K

monroebaby wrote: »

Queen Victoria's husband Prince (consort) Albert didn't become King because he did not inherit the throne and therefore couldn't claim a title deemed higher than that of the lady in charge. When Kate marries William she should become a Queen (consort) and share her husbands rank but not hold his military or political powers. Historically and politically its important. A lot of people will be interested in it, the problem really is the way todays media drowns us in mundane detail, too much information. That's the way it is and as long as people keep making money at it, that's the way it'll stay. By the time this comes around we will surely know what even the corgi's have had for breakfast on the day. :eek:

The main thing I think about in that case is that she (queen victoria) wanted him to to king consort, the government at the time wouldn't allow it. Also I have a feeling that Mary I her husband was king consort (but then he was king of Spain). Thinking about it, it's probably going to be different for a woman(well used to queen consort and queen dowager by now)

Also I have watched far too many history documenties, I'm not going to reply because to be honest I don't even know her name and I don't care what it is either.

Pretty_Pistol

I'm interested. I've never seen a Royal wedding besides the Prince Charles and Camilla ceremony which was pretty boring. Also, I like history and this will be a part of history. And I'm interested in seeing her dress.

monroebaby

Orla K wrote: »

I'm not going to reply because to be honest I don't even know her name and I don't care what it is either.

I'm sure you'll know it by the end of the ceremony!!! Its sure to be on every TV and radio station, newspaper and magazine!

Personally I think its nice that they're getting married, it's not an endogamous marriage. They've been together years, its clearly a marriage of love. A previous poster stated that its a sign that the Royal family have moved with the times because of this. That in itself is historic I guess. While I really don't want to see it on the news, I'm definitely interested in the dress! I wasn't around for Diana and Charles' wedding, but her dress was maaaaaasssive!!! I reckon Kate's will be a lot simpler, more modern, less fairytale Or maybe a big pouffy Vera Wang

iguana

Orla K wrote: »

Also I have a feeling that Mary I her husband was king consort (but then he was king of Spain). Thinking about it, it's probably going to be different for a woman(well used to queen consort and queen dowager by now)

England or the whole of Britain has never had a King Consort. The earliest Queen Regnants, Matilda and Jane, never held power in a way that allowed for their husband's positions to be confirmed. (Though Jane did not wish to make Guildford Dudley anything more than a Duke.)

Phillip II of Spain was co-monarch for the duration of his marriage to Mary I. They could only call parliament jointly for example. In return his father ceded a number of his titles, King of Naples and King of Jerusalem (which was titular only at this point), early so Phillip could be Mary's equal in rank. He didn't become King of Spain until 1556 when his father abdicated.

Mary II and William of Orange were also co-monarchs and their marriage treaty allowed for William to continue to rule after Mary's death. Anne's husband, George, third son of the Danish monarch, was Prince only in his Danish title. Duke of Cumberland was the greatest title he gained as the Queen's consort. But he was styled by his greatest title which was his Danish one, Prince.

Victoria did wish for Prince Albert, a prince in his own right as a member of the royal house of Saxony, to become King consort but the parliament did not want a German king. She chose to title him as Prince Consort instead. The current Prince Phillip is not actually a Prince Consort at all but instead a Prince of the United Kingdom.

A number of the wives of various male monarchs were never crowned, and so never officially Queen Consort, but all were styled as Queen.

LadyMayBelle

Well, i plan on having a bit of a cheesy bash on the day, oogling the the dress and all. Who's in?

getz

Fishie wrote: »

As for my opinions about the actual engagement, I think that it shows that the Royal family are starting to move with the times a bit more. William is engaged to his girlfriend of several years, who is from a rich but not a titled family. She has had previous boyfriends, has an education, and most importantly they chose each other. They have also been together for years, so she has a good idea of what she is getting herself into. They've even lived together before marriage - there is no way this would have been allowed a few decades ago!

Compare this to his parents, Charles and Diana - Charles had obviously fallen for Camilla, but was not allowed to marry her because she was divorced. Diana was pretty much chosen for him - she was young (I think she may have been 18 or 19?) compared to Charles who was in his early 30s, her father was an Earl, and she was a virgin. A lot of importance was placed on the virgin thing - I've heard before that some press at the time were determined to get evidence of the couple having sex before marriage, but actually recorded phone calls between Charles and Camilla, which were quickly hushed up. Anyway, my point is that they should have just let Charles marry Camilla in the first place, it would have saved so much heartache, and it was a big deal when they finally got married a few years ago.

So, I think it is a good thing that he is being allowed to marry the person he is actually in love with, not some titled virgin who has been chosen to bear sons for him and not much else. Also, Diana was so determined that her kids would grow up to be grounded, I think that she would have approved.

sorry to let you down, diana was not a virgin when she married charles,it was well known she was bedding a soldier ,

efb

I thought they had her 'checked'?

getz

efb wrote: »

I thought they had her 'checked'?

no that just one of those things people like to believe,on the king consort [prince philip]gave up his greek royal titles when marrying elizabeth,his dad was prince andrew of greece,his mother princess alice of battenburg, and his grandmother queen olga of greece,he has stated that he considers himself danish,

getz

diana first boyfriend was called george plumptre,they were so close she would do all his washing for him,

Corsendonk

Royal Wedding in 2011
London Olympics in 2012
Queens Diamond Jubilee 2012

I think ladies you will have plenty of opportunities for royal watching.

Giselle

A good 15 minutes of breakfast news time this morning was devoted to discussing whether or not Kate would have a British or foreign designer work on her dress.

Don't get me wrong, I'll check out her dress like everyone else on the wedding day, but its at least six months away and speculating about the nationality of the designer isn't news.

Its only going to get worse too.:(

spinandscribble

Its only been a day but i'm so sick of it all over the news. I can't get over she hasn't even had a career in her life, just follows Will around the bases.

Scarinae

Giselle wrote: »

A good 15 minutes of breakfast news time this morning was devoted to discussing whether or not Kate would have a British or foreign designer work on her dress.

Don't get me wrong, I'll check out her dress like everyone else on the wedding day, but its at least six months away and speculating about the nationality of the designer isn't news.

Its only going to get worse too.:(

Apparently some of the news channels have been interviewing everyone who has ever met her - her old hairdresser, teachers from school, barmen from pubs she would frequent... It's a bit creepy. Imagine if you suddenly became famous and absolutely anyone you'd had contact with was on the news talking about you?

getz wrote: »

sorry to let you down, diana was not a virgin when she married charles,it was well known she was bedding a soldier ,

Sorry to let me down? :rolleyes: It doesn't matter to me if she was a virgin or not, but either way the press made a big deal of it, and like efb pointed out that it's widely said that they had her checked... There has been no mention of it this time as far as I've seen anyway. Considering that they've lived together for years, and she's had previous boyfriends, it is unlikely - but nobody really cares these days. I think that this is a good thing

Giselle

Fishie wrote: »

Imagine if you suddenly became famous and absolutely anyone you'd had contact with was on the news talking about you?

Can you imagine the kiss and tell potential for unscrupulous ex's? :eek:

Maybe thats why they went for girls 'without a past' before now.